Saturday, April 12, 2008

Comment from Ed, a Masonic friend and brother

deleted

4 comments:

Radcliffe said...

When we see that people feel we are still a racist country, we should not dismiss it. The state of Masonic recognition is open testimony to the truth of it. Sad truth

Anonymous said...

Just as not all Democrats have sex with interns, and not all Republicans tap their feet in a public restroom, not all Jesters are guilty of even knowing about the shenanigans of the Jesters in Buffalo.

Sandy Frost is, by no means, an authoratitive source. She quotes extensively from anonymous single sources, does not bother to check her facts, and defames by asking rhetorical and misleading questions {i.e., When did you stop beating your wife?)

To the larger point of recognition, I heartily agree that we should extend recognition to all PHM Grand Lodges and subordinate lodges, allowing visitation and dual memberships. We do recognize "black" lodges in countries where the indiginous population is not caucasian ... then why not do the same in our own country?

Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

I think it's funny how people not from Kentucky can complain about an issue they know NOTHING about. This isn't about black and white, this is about REGULAR and IRREGULAR.

Prince Hall Lodges are not considered "clandestine" because they're black. They're "clandestine" and "irregular" because of the way they form and operate their lodges.

The Grand Lodge of Kentucky has Masons within its ranks who are Black, White, Asian, Indian and Native American.

To say that this is a racial issue is absurd and obviously "Brother Ed" has no idea what he's talking about.

Justa Mason said...

I'm afraid it's not about regular and irregular. Much of the Masonic world now agrees with the conclusions of the Upton Report made well over 100 years ago regarding regularity of Prince Hall Masonry, including the successor body to that which originally granted a warrant to African Lodge.

The issue strikes me more to do with Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction than anything else. Correct if I'm wrong, but does the G.L. Kentucky claim exclusive jurisdiction over Masonry in the state? If so, that would strike me as the Constitutional reason why it does not recognise another body operating as Masonry in that state.

Just a Mason